Why didn't the Times get out in front with its first-ever! black executive editor story?

Far from celebrating Baquet, the Times leadership instead finds itself scrambling to deflect charges of sexism surrounding the termination of its first-ever female executive editor.

Race can trump gender. "Trump" is a card-game word, and we're talking about race and gender cards. But in a card game, you have to play the card to win. And in the race-and-gender card game, you lose if you look like you are playing. In this race-and-gender game, it's not the NYT or Jill Abramson who is out there playing the cards. Others are doing the commentary, and there are so many writers — especially female journalists — who are ready to play, as I noted a couple posts down, quoting "The fury of women journalists who identify with Abramson stems from what we know: that excellent performances are not enough."

Commenter MayBee said "The fury of women journalists" sounded like one of those old "terms of venery" like "a murder of crows" and "a crash of rhinos."

So beware. Don't assume race beats sex. Obama beat Hillary, but it's a little more complicated than a generic approval of first black over first female. There's an elaborate political/PR game to be played, and the winners and losers are determined subjectively within human minds, those minds are affected by what is written, and, for things to be written, there must be writers.

I suspect that there are many of us who would love for all of them to lose. All sides of this spat are negative players in our national civic life. They are the pissers in the punch bowl and richly deserve a tall glass of what they've been serving to others.

The problem for the Times is that they picked Abrahamson over Baquet 3 years ago, so it's harder for them to play up Baquet now. If he was better then he should have been chosen at the time. If he was not chosen despite this, then the Times thought it was better to choose the woman over the black man. Given their readership, this was probably a rational business decision. But they can't tout the black hiring now. It looks even worse in hindsight not to have chosen him three years ago. Basically they discriminated against the black guy three years ago and are discriminating against the woman now.

Women have very little difficulty conjuring up unacceptably bad male bosses. The behavior of these bosses marks them as bad. When it comes to bad female bosses, women, it would seem, have little appetite for discussions of acceptable behavior in other females. To them women never behave poorly. It's male perception that needs correction.

Look, I'm not a woman, so I'll freely admit that I simply don't/can't "get it".

However, a word to the wise: this is all coming perilously close to looking like the girl's table at a junior high school. A whole lot of "did you hear what she said . . . " , "I heard that . . . . " and "let's get so and so to say this about that mean guy".

I don't know the relevant facts of the dismissal, but the optics of this are becoming quite bad. They (media women and some men) are reinforcing an image that I do not think they want to reinforce.

huh, just read some actual numbers. I was wrong in my earlier comments about this.

Gives a me a warm feeling to see a leftist commit the unconscionable act of paying a woman less than a man.

I still hold the position that it is possible to pay a person less than their predecessor without it being related to gender. However, given Sulzberger's parting praise of the work Abramson did, that doesn't appear defensible in this case.

1. Is a business owner allowed to negotiate wages with the same zeal as the employee? that is the employee is trying to get the most pay possible. Can the employer try to get labor as inexpensively as possible, or is that not allowed anymore?

2.Does the employer have a right to fire an employee simply because the employee is a pain in the ass?

People in positions of power and authority come and go, and business hire people for key positions taking some comfort in the knowledge that if it doesn't work out, the person can be replaced. What happens when it becomes really hard to replace someone because, for example, she is a woman and there is a media storm upon her firing? It makes it more difficult for other women to get hired for key positions because it is more risky for businesses to hire them. Poor old white males remain "employees at will" - and thus much more safe to hire becasue they can easily be fired.

Put another way - in light of the Jill/NYT events, what newspaper would not now think twice about naming a woman executive editor?

From the link: In a memo to staff on Thursday, Sulzberger said, 'It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors,' and later added: "Compensation played no part whatsoever in my decision that Jill could not remain as executive editor. Nor did any discussion about compensation. The reason — the only reason — for that decision was concerns I had about some aspects of Jill’s management of our newsroom, which I had previously made clear to her, both face-to-face and in my annual assessment.'

It's interesting that so many assume that Sulzberger is lying, and that no NYT employees are coming out to back up their boss. These should be readily verifiable numerical facts, not the speculation of some nefarious law firm hired to have an opinion.

If General Motors lets go of (or otherwise retires/fires/asks-to-resign/terminates-employment-of) female CEO Mary Barra, will it generate similar amounts of media attention?

If not, why not?

(Caveat: Any current speculation about Mary Barra's future may not focus heavily on whether she is a successful woman CEO, but rather on the large number of recalls currently underway. Even though most of the recalled items were designed/manufactured/approved before she took on the role of CEO.)

Still, would there be lots of journalists asking questions about whether such a firing would be "because she is a woman", if such a firing/resignation were to happen?

Let’s look at some numbers I’ve been given: As executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her successor in that position, Phil Taubman.* (Murphy would say only that Abramson’s compensation was “broadly comparable” to that of Taubman and Geddes.)

Murphy cautioned that one shouldn’t look at salary but, rather, at total compensation, which includes, she said, any bonuses, stock grants, and other long-term incentives. This distinction appears to be the basis of Sulzberger’s comment that Abramson was not earning “significantly less.” But it is hard to know how to parse this without more numbers from the Times. For instance, did Abramson’s compensation pass Keller’s because the Times’ stock price rose? Because her bonuses came in up years and his in down years? Because she received a lump-sum long-term payment and he didn’t?

And, if she was wrong, why would Mark Thompson agree, after her protest, to sweeten her compensation from $503,000 to $525,000? (Murphy said, on behalf of Thompson, that Abramson “also raised other issues about her compensation and the adequacy of her pension arrangements, which had nothing to do with the issue of comparability. It was to address these other issues that we suggested an increase in her compensation.”)

What is a fact is that Abramson believed she was being treated unequally. After learning, recently, that her salary was not equal to her male counterparts’, she visited with Sulzberger to complain. And she hired a lawyer because she believed she was not treated fairly.

There's a simpler problem at work here. The name "Jill" immediately tells us she's a woman. The name "Baquet", the name her successor still insists on using instead of "First Black Guy", only suggests his name is of a French lineage.

So, shorter NYT story that immediately gets written about:

"First female NYT editor sacked, replaced with some guy with a French-sounding name."

Conservatives are screaming bloody murder about how we're changing the country so fast - after defeating a history of violence with levels unseen on these shores previous - and you still persist with this "victim" nonsense.

Man, it'll be decades before whites not only learn the language of race but are capable of appreciating the history, bravery, and accomplishment of it.

Blacks and women (and everybody else) are white men's victims?

Sure, like cockroaches miraculously surviving a nuclear blast, only to conquer the world anew,….

Heh, this whole thing is sort of like a cat fight on the dance floor of the Titanic anyway. While the NYT struggles to contain the PR damage, their tenuous grasp on "Newspaper of Record" continues to be eroded by other sources that deliver actual news instead of ideologically driven drivel.

Whatever the outcome, the end result is going to be someone will be left to tend to the slow and miserable demise of a once great institution. Still the cat fight is fun to watch from shore.

Even though most of the recalled items were designed/manufactured/approved before she took on the role of CEO.)

Wasn't Mary Barra head of the department that designed/manufactured/approved the defective items that are subject to recall? And didn't change part numbers on them so no one could tell if they had defective parts or not (normal convention is to change part numbers) in effect covering it up?

Jill Abramson lost her job, but so far she's winning the press relations war.

So far. But the Times is countering with specific examples to demonstrate Abramson's lack of people skills. Few people want to work for a manager without people skills, so I think the PR blitz will blow back not only on Abramson but on her vocal female supporters. Long term I think she, and they, will lose.

All of these people, Keller. Baquet, Abramson, Sulzberger, belong to a very privileged, well compensated class. It's possible that not all of the perks are equitably distributed, but their lives look far more pleasant and endurable than those of most of us here on planet earth......Lincoln Steffens had the reputation of a keen, investigative journalist, His keen investigative instincts failed him when he visited the Soviet Uniion. He was a first hand witness to some of the greatest crimes in human history, and none of them registered. My feeling is that there will be more words written and outrage expressed about this Abramson affair than the atrocities committed upon the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.....The NYT is trying to think outside the box (heh, heh), but they need a quarterback who know show to scramble.

From Powerline: "No wonder the Times has trouble finding a viable business model! We are four guys running a web site in our spare time. We have no expenses other than hosting fees of around $1,000 a month. We have no payroll and no advertising expenses. And yet the vast, expensive apparatus of the nation’s supposedly premier newspaper can muster only 30 times our traffic."

What is the NYT? I read then from time to time and, IMO, they are an "editorial page" masquerading as a news outlet. The economics of that just doesn't work anymore.

The real tragedy is that anyone, regardless of ability, was paid less than Bill Keller.

If all this goes smoothly -- and even if it goes a little less smoothly -- Mr. Bush will hear a chorus of supporters claiming vindication. I imagine a triumphalist editorial or two in the neoconservative press. Pundits who earlier urged Mr. Bush to ignore Congress and the U.N. will assure him that he can now safely disregard everyone who caviled at the threshold of war, and urge him to get on with the next liberation in the series.Link

Oh well, only hundreds of thousands of people died. But not Keller's kids. Or Judith Miller's.

"Conservatives are screaming bloody murder about how we're changing the country so fast - after defeating a history of violence with levels unseen on these shores previous - and you still persist with this "victim" nonsense."

New York Post (courtesy Drudge) An-Grey Lady, Sacked Times editor ready to rumble.

This ignited a cascade. Sack = bag. To sack = to bag. Bag = baggage. Baggage = intangible things which are a hindrance to optimal performance, in the specific case contending victimhoods. Baggage =intangible things which are a hindrance to optimal performance, in the general case the whole damned Left/Progressive agenda which the NYT has done so much to advance. Baggage = a contemptible woman.

So I am a subscriber. I am curious where everyone thinks factual reporting would come from if the NYT failed. The WSJ's finances are worse and they go under before the Times so we wouldn't be getting it from them. The Daily Mail is the cockroach of the news world so they will probably survive, but otherwise it would be pretty bleak. Our news diet would consist solely of content-free half-baked gossip about politics.

Titus, the Times hasn't paid a dividend in 5 years. It's not exactly thriving. And those people don't run the company, they are just the top news editors. They are not the CEO, CFO, etc. I was surprised how much they both got paid. Abrahamson must have been extra pissed when the Obama tax rates went into effect. Keller was too editor when the W. Tax rates were in effect.

@Robert Holmgren, not at all! They are battling over the fact that a man would have been called an arrogant a**hole, but because of her gender Jill Abramson is called a bitch. As far as I'm concerned, if Jim Abramson would rather be called an arrogant a**hole that's fine with me.

"And my poor wife and children come from a history of mistreatment at the hands of the white man. It makes me very sad. If only you, Crack, could understand what Native Americans have been through."

When some American white people reveal the values they live by, it's a wonder they can look at themselves in the mirror. The cynicism is Nazi-like in texture. I've lived in Europe and met them, and it's much the same - they do wrong because they believe nothing matters. Doing right isn't even an option.

At least, when we blacks are fucked up, we usually KNOW we're fucked up,….

Jason said...The New York Times reported that wounded servicemen and women receive "The Purple Star." They also reported that the Medal of Honor is an award given to songwriters. I could go on.

The NYT isn't exactly known for its broad sympathy with anything military, including who they hire. It's all wedded to the curious Ivy League disdain they all feel for things martial. This guy writes their veterans affairs beat. When was the last time they broadened the meaning of "veteran NYT reporter ______?

I was thinking about this. I remember the part where a black woman (don't remember who) whose claims they used in their book was exposed later as a liar. Which I have no doubt abramson knew already that she was. Even after she was exposed they went on peddling the story. The woman in question had been vicious towards an openly gay black man (who also was known to have HIV at the time and later died) who worked for Thomas at HUD(?)or the EEOC(?). I think it was one of those departments. Of course her vitriol wasn't because he was black or gay but because he was both and a REPUBLICAN. This woman claimed Thomas had mistreated this guy, when in fact, he had done just the opposite and had scolded her for her treatment of him. This is the lies that abramson used to smear Thomas.

The media and the democrats standards sure did evolve fast from Thomas to clinton. Part of the reason that this then youngster started to have a complete disregard for their selective use of indignant outrage.

"A break-up makes particular sense for News Corp, however, which has spent the past two years grappling with a scandal relating to allegations of phone-hacking and police bribery at the News of the World, a British newspaper that News Corp shut down in 2011. Separating the “good co” (as analysts are calling 21st Century Fox) from the newspaper business (dubbed "crap co") insulates the profitable television divisions from the repercussions of the scandal, which has cost News Corp $389m in legal and other costs so far."

Murdoch is a fantastic paper man but he is also near death. Don't see much good happening for crap co in the mid term.

Sure, but that goes both ways. Women will subconsciously like certain types of men better as well. It's not that hard to be aware of it and overcome it any more than working with anyone in a professional or team situation who you don't particularly love at first glance. It's lazy not to get over it.

I have to call bullshit. Are we really supposed to believe that this silly cow is worth half a million dollars a year? Or that there aren't literally thousands of people who could manage the NYT as well or better?

I never seek out the New York Times in print or on line. I probably would have gone to my grave without ever hearing Jill Abramson's name if my favorite bloggers had not brought her up. She would have been a nobody in my world but instead she is now a tattooed victim of black privilege in my mind. Congratulations, Jill!

Funny. I will let you read the FBR, UBS and Barclays reports on you own. I think the earnings themselves refute your uninformed assertion but will let the analysts school you further. Quarterly reports and other filings courtesy of SEC,gov.

It's like skin color, no mam chooses to be 5'4" (5th percentile of Caucasian American males) and no man can work out to get taller. You are what you are. And you get as much discrimination as "uppity Negros" and "Mouthy Bitches." Ever heard of "Napoleon complex"? In fact he was a great general and a good governor but he was too damn short.

So, lets give short men 12 comp days a year for the fact that they are working harder to stand still.

Credit Suisse upgraded News Corp. (NASDAQ: NWSA) from Neutral to Outperform.Despite a soft advertising environment, News Corporation posted better-than-expected third-quarter fiscal 2014 results on the back of effective cost management. The quarterly earnings of $0.11 per share surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $0.03 but tumbled 15% from the prior-year quarter. Softness did persist across the company's Australian newspaper but the company witnessed a rise in digital subscriptions and website traffic as well as healthy revenue generation at REA. However, total revenue fell 5%, but came ahead of the Zacks Consensus Estimate. We believe the diverse revenue streams hedge it against economic cycles to some extent. Moreover, a strong balance sheet with a sturdy cash balance provides it with the financial flexibility to go for strategic acquisitions, operational enhancement and shareholder friendly moves. Currently, we maintain our Neutral recommendation on the stock.

New News Corp. was given a fortress balance sheet; including a cash position of $2.6 billion (accounting for 27% of the company's market capitalization) and no long-term debt obligations with the exception of a $500mm legacy obligation. Media mogul and CEO of old News Corp. Rupert Murdoch serves as new News Corp.'s Executive Chairman and owns approximately <1% of new News Corp.'s Class A shares outstanding and 39.4% of new News Corp.'s Class B shares outstanding.

So advertising, subscription and revenues decline but you want to say they are doing fine. It is a curious strategy you have chosen.

Nobody, especially investors in the formerly combined firm, thinks that the Murdoch print empire has any growth potential. There is broad agreement that the business will continue to steadily contract.

Michael said...We wont even discuss your hilarious assertion, which you cannot support, that NWSA is in worse shape than the WSJ.

NWSA is News Corp, which owns the WSJ. I don't think you are a real financial analyst.

Michael you seem determined to embarrass yourself with both the personal attacks and the pompous attitude.

You have provided no numbers to contradict my assertion that the WSJ is a declining business and you are clearly confused about the structure of that business.

With respect to the comparison between the NYT and the WSJ this is a good summary of their current trajectories. The key observation is this:

"Advertising still represents a majority of revenues for the Journal, sources say, in the mid-50s percentagewise, with circulation in the mid-40s. That’s the inverse of the Times, which recently reported that 56 percent of its revenues now come from readers. Given that reader revenue is now growing as paywalls have gone up, and that print ads remain in sharp decline, majority reader revenue seems to be the preferable market position."

In a world where print advertising dollars continue to decline the NYT has the better business model. Reader loyalty rather than advertising is going to keep a small number of papers afloat. The NYT is clearly winning that battle.

If it makes you feel any better I actually think the WSJ is a better newspaper at the moment, thanks to Murdoch's input, but the NYT is a better web site and clearly has a better business model. Their decision to focus on their core business has proven a good call. The WSJ on the other hand has had Murdoch as sugar daddy and has not had to make any hard decisions. When Murdoch dies there is a good chance that the WSJ, as a newspaper, goes with him. Other aspects of the business will obviously survive.

The Sec.gov site has all the numbers you need to "do the numbers". I gather you are intimidated by the filings.

Keep learning about finance by reading journals about journalism.

That the WSJ will die with Murdoch is a particularly stupid assertion. Should the paper "die" I suppose financial news will be coming from the NYT and NPR where you learned the killer phrase " let's do the numbers!!"

The Sec.gov site has all the numbers you need to "do the numbers". I gather you are intimidated by the filings.

Keep learning about finance by reading journals about journalism.

That the WSJ will die with Murdoch is a particularly stupid assertion. Should the paper "die" I suppose financial news will be coming from the NYT and NPR where you learned the killer phrase " let's do the numbers!!"

Michael, you have still failed to provide numbers that support your assertion that the WSJ is a growing business. Your failure to do this is very revealing, although you seem oblivious to this fact. Your blather does not disguise reality.

We note with interest that the one bit of "running the numbers" you did was to cut and paste from the Q1 of News Corp, apparently before you learned that it held multiple properties and before you understood that the YOY comparisons were impacted particularly by Australia. Let us just say that persistence in ducking your original assertion and changing the subject are standard for you on this blog.

I have urged you to look at the SEC.GOV filings of either or both of the public companies but you somehow believe it is incumbent on me to refute your assertion that the NYT was financially healthier apparently feeling no obligation to support that with facts. You simply made a statement that I contested and you cannot support your statement.

Not sure of your background so I can't tell if you are disingenuous or just dumb. You questioned whether or not I was an analyst which suggests the latter since I am not and never said I was.

You have still failed to provide any numbers on the subscription and ad revenues for the WSJ, which are falling. You have also failed to show how their reliance on advertising is not a weakness given the plummeting ad revenues. You are not in a strong position to complain about my ignorance given that you demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the corporate structure of News Corp.

You have obviously lost this argument and are now trying to run out the clock. Your ad hominem attacks being fairly clear evidence of this.

Neither paper is in great shape as a business. I have found analysts who believe the NYT is in better shape going forward than the WSJ and they have a pretty good argument. You are welcome to respond with something other than your own unsubstantiated opinions.